G.R. No. 92649 - Spouses Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Administration

Complainant Emma V. De Juan was employed by Triple AAA Antique on or about December 15, 1998 as a packer on probation status.
Her employment was terminated on June 11, 1999, based on a performance evaluation citing irregular attendance and inefficiency. Complainant alleged termination without notice or explanation.
She filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, non-payment of premium pay (holiday, rest day, and 13th month pay), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Complainant sought legal assistance from Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which assigned Atty. Oscar R. Baria III (respondent) to handle her labor case under a contingency fee agreement.
On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of complainant.
Triple AAA Antique filed an appeal to the NLRC, which on September 24, 2001 reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and declared no illegal dismissal.

Complainant later learned of the NLRC’s reversal only in October 2001 when she contacted respondent. She inquired about filing a motion for reconsideration, but respondent admitted not knowing how to file one.
In November 2001, complainant's husband contacted respondent and was told by respondent’s secretary that respondent was angry with them and might cause harm.
Complainant charged respondent with negligence in handling her case and with grave threats against her person.

Respondent, a recently passed bar novice, clarified he offered free legal services as a broadcaster for poor clients. He had forewarned complainant regarding his limited experience.
Respondent explained he filed a Motion for Writ of Execution which was ruled premature and opposed the appeal, but the NLRC took the appeal up.
He advised complainant regularly and even gave suggestions to lessen expenses; he also accommodated her and her husband when they visited Manila.
Upon the NLRC’s adverse decision, respondent confronted complainant about falsehoods on her employment and advised her to get a more experienced lawyer.
Respondent denied receiving any money from Triple AAA Antique or from complainant, attributing the libelous accusations to misunderstandings.
After an incident involving a radio commentator Raffy Tulfo, respondent received alleged death threats and noticed suspicious armed men near his office, which he reported to the police.

The Court required respondent to comment, then referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline required complainant to reply, which she did, maintaining respondent’s negligence, and denying any money acceptance except for a loan of P100 from respondent’s secretary.
The IBP Board of Governors found respondent guilty of negligence in handling the labor case and recommended a three-month suspension; the charge of grave threats was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Whether respondent committed culpable negligence warranting disciplinary action for failing to file a motion for reconsideration on behalf of complainant after the NLRC decision dated September 24, 2001.
Whether the grave threats complaint against respondent was substantiated.